US Election: I could never get the hang of Tuesdays

[Altherion]

19 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

If people believe that Trump cares about the middle class, then they have a very skewed view of reality. Trump was born into privileges, and his whole life was one of leveraging that privilege. To wit - how many people that you and I know get to bankrupt 4 companies and still be known as a successful businessman? If the support he is getting from the working class is because of his economic policies, then they are deeply deceived.

They are not deceived. They're simply using him as an opportunity to say something (an opportunity which they almost never get). Take a look at this article:

Quote

My neighbors in West Virginia are good people too. Hard to believe, since some work outside and not all have degrees, but trust me on this. They're aware of how they're seen by the upper orders. They understand the prevailing view that they're bigots, too stupid to know what's good for them, and they see that this contempt is reserved especially for them. The ones I know don't seem all that angry or bitter -- they find it funny more than infuriating -- but they sure don't like being looked down on.

...

Yet, contrary to reports, the Trump supporters I'm talking about aren't fools. They aren't racists either. They don't think much would change one way or the other if Trump were elected. The political system has failed them so badly that they think it can't be repaired and little's at stake. The election therefore reduces to an opportunity to express disgust. And that's where Trump's defects come in: They're what make him such an effective messenger.

We should be grateful that they're choosing to express themselves in this way for now. If things continue on their current path, sooner or later it will occur to them that they don't actually have to sit there and be lectured about their "privilege" by one set of the ruling scumbags and their lackeys and about "personal responsibility" by a different set of ruling scumbags and their lackeys... all the while their lives are slowly destroyed by a combination of technological progress and the economic structures owned by both sets of scumbags. When that happens, I suspect they will come up with a more convincing mode of expression and things will get very unpleasant very quickly.

Quote

As for the quip about Clinton getting money for the speech, how does that even carry authority when Trump's early tagline was to paint himself as a self-financing billionaire?

Trump does not claim that American never stopped being great.

[James Arryn]

What scares me most, about Trump, would be the kind of thinking that got Reagan and Dubya re-elected. The ad-hom appeal of acting tough, of representing the US as the hardest guy in the joint, the one who will make others knuckle under, etc. There's something odd about that kind of image that appeals to many r-w Americans as though it's a kind of intuitive common sense. Forget that it almost always accompanies horrible policy, or that it is exactly the wrong kind of foreign stance to address the kind of  irregular warfare which currently represents America's greatest challenge...unless being that way manages to rekindle some kind of Cold War with Russia or China, which isn't out of the question.

I mean, if you study irregular warfare, the blueprint is pretty much designed with hawkish tough-image projecting opposing leadership in mind. Beyond all the other political issues, America going full Trump would delight the leadership of many of their enemies. 

 

 

[TerraPrime]

7 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They are not deceived. They're simply using him as an opportunity to say something (an opportunity which they almost never get). Take a look at this article:

We should be grateful that they're choosing to express themselves in this way for now. If things continue on their current path, sooner or later it will occur to them that they don't actually have to sit there and be lectured about their "privilege" by one set of the ruling scumbags and their lackeys and about "personal responsibility" by a different set of ruling scumbags and their lackeys... all the while their lives are slowly destroyed by a combination of technological progress and the economic structures owned by both sets of scumbags. When that happens, I suspect they will come up with a more convincing mode of expression and things will get very unpleasant very quickly.

Trump does not claim that American never stopped being great.

None of that really applies to my comment, which is that if they support him for his economic policies, then they are deceived. If they are supporting him because he speaks the truth, or they can relate to him, or for other reasons, then it doesn't really apply. But in your original post, you implied that people support Trump because he promises to fix the deteriorating middle class. THAT is what is deceitful. He won't.

[Myshkin]

2 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is officially a sillier comment than the idea that Clinton is only "5% better" than Ted Cruz. As self-defeating as a small subset of Sanders supporters might be, they aren't sending anyone to the guillotine or gulag. 

Nor was I saying that they are; I was pointing out the dangers of demanding ideological purity by using two extreme historical examples. I was using the horrors that followed the French and Russian revolutions to illustrate that the demand of ideological purity is not the way of progress.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Trump does not claim that American never stopped being great.

But he does, every time he speaks. You can't say "Let's make America great again" without saying it's no longer great. 

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But he does, every time he speaks. You can't say "Let's make America great again" without saying it's no longer great. 

I'm not sure if it was an error, but his double negative implies you're in agreement. I 

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Trump has actually been pretty outspoken on the subject of campaign finance from the beginning of his campaign (see, for example, this article and video). In my opinion, despite the fact that it also implicates him in the corruption, one of his strongest points has been the willingness to say something that most people know, but no politician of note has said publicly: namely, that big donors aren't giving away millions of dollars to candidates and Super PACs out of pure ideological fervor. They expect policies that benefit them and favors that they call in -- and Trump knows this first hand because he has bought such favors in the past.

Now, whether he will actually do something about this should he be elected is another matter -- I suspect not simply because I don't see what the President can do. However, he has certainly spoken about it.

 

 

 

The President can do plenty, which is exactly the problem. He/she appoints SC justices, as well as the FEC. In addition, Obama is considering executive action related to campaign finance disclosures.

When a candidate promises something you have to wonder if they are being truthful and will go through with it after elected. When they don't promise it's even worse. It doesn't appear he cares about the issue at all except as a club on opponents during elections. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

56 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I'm not sure if it was an error, but his double negative implies you're in agreement. I 

Oh yeah, my mistake. I misread that first post. I guess that's one case of Drumpf actually getting it right. American exceptionalism needs to get called out.

[Fat Mac]

I don't think Sanders can win this. Has anyone come back from being almost 200 delegates down after Super Tuesday? Not that I can think of.

His failure to appeal to minorities is definitely a contributing factor in this. He's exceptional at winning overwhelmingly white states, but outside of the Midwest, mountain states and New England, those states don't really exist. Add that to Clinton's good report with the black community, and you get the margins we saw in the South yesterday and during the SC primary. And since it more or less seems like Sanders "abandoned" the deep South because of his poor polling, he's not likely to win over any more black voters.

To add to this I just don't think a large portion of Americans agree with what he says. Similar to Trump, but less abrasive and on the left side of the spectrum. I don't think many moderates would feel comfortable voting for him, especially when Clinton provides a more moderate, more experienced alternative. 

At this point, being as far behind as he is, and with little expectation to do well in the big states coming up, I think he's done.

 

On the GOP side, I hear all this talk about a brokered convention. I'm not an expert on the delegate math, but Trump is in a big lead as of now. Does anyone think this is likely, or is the GOP establishment just holding out hope that Trump will still crash and burn, or at least not get all the delegates he needs?

[Altherion]

31 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Oh yeah, my mistake. I misread that first post. I guess that's one case of Trump actually getting it right. American exceptionalism needs to get called out.

No worries. It took me a couple of times re-reading what I said to figure out that I had actually gotten it right.

21 minutes ago, Fat Mac said:

I don't think Sanders can win this. Has anyone come back from being almost 200 delegates down after Super Tuesday? Not that I can think of.

He needs something big to happen. For example, he can still win if Clinton is indicted over the emails. Beyond that, it's basically over.

Quote

On the GOP side, I hear all this talk about a brokered convention. I'm not an expert on the delegate math, but Trump is in a big lead as of now. Does anyone think this is likely, or is the GOP establishment just holding out hope that Trump will still crash and burn, or at least not get all the delegates he needs?

Some of the big states are winner-take-all. If Rubio wins Florida and Kasich wins Ohio, Trump may end up with a plurality of votes, but not an outright majority. Of course, that's a pretty big "if" given the track records of Rubio and Kasich so far.

[Iskaral Pust]

Sorry to jump in without reading all of the thread -- what's the analysis of whether Clinton's advantage in the primary actually carries over to the general election?

The whole thing basically comes down to Florida, Colorado, Ohio and maybe Nevada, Virginia and a couple of other purplish spots. Perhaps the Dems should abandon national primaries and only count states that are purple or at most blue and purple. Clinton's relative strength in red southern states won't matter much in November.

[TrackerNeil]

This is really interesting. Fox News is basically an arm of the GOP, and if they are abandoning Rubio, I imagine other party elites will follow.

Also, if you watch the linked video, Rubio is desperately spinning Super Tuesday as a victory for him and a failure for Trump and Cruz. It's pathetic. The Marcobot looks strained here, so I suspect that he knows the hole he's in, and how unlikely it is he'll dig himself out.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

 

Sorry to jump in without reading all of the thread -- what's the analysis of whether Clinton's advantage in the primary actually carries over to the general election?

The whole thing basically comes down to Florida, Colorado, Ohio and maybe Nevada, Virginia and a couple of other purplish spots. Perhaps the Dems should abandon national primaries and only count states that are purple or at most blue and purple. Clinton's relative strength in red southern states won't matter much in November.

There's little reason to believe Trump will be able to pull a better map then Romney did. Especially with his negatives among various demographics.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, alguien said:

For a whole bunch of reasons, I was just about to post this podcast link to yesterday's Fresh Air episode titled Single By Choice: Why Fewer American Women Are Married Than Ever Before. 

The first half is a fascinating (and hopeful) look at the phenomena, the latter part focuses a bit on Hillary Clinton's candidacy. I found this part pretty fascinating:

On generational divide between female voters:

The whole thing though is very worth a listen. 

I do think the two Clinton's trajectories have been rather interesting in that respect. It's why I don't buy the "Clinton Dynasty" comments as anything but hogwash. Hillary Clinton was always the kind of person who would be trying to run for President or whatever whether she met Bill or not. The fact that she married him actually put her entire career ambitions on hold and alot of the shit she gets from the 90s in the media and such was exactly for being "too uppity" and seen as too powerful. (I do sometimes wonder if some of the generational break against Clinton you see is because alot of the people in question aren't old enough to remember why Hillary Clinton got the shit she did and only know her from the media narrative.)

I kinda like that the two of them, whatever else they are up to in their personal lives, seem to be trading off who gets to fulfil their ambitions. Hillary put her career on hold so Bill could run for office and now he's putting his weight behind her so she can do the same. I think that's admirable in many ways.

[Galactus]

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

 

Sorry to jump in without reading all of the thread -- what's the analysis of whether Clinton's advantage in the primary actually carries over to the general election?

The whole thing basically comes down to Florida, Colorado, Ohio and maybe Nevada, Virginia and a couple of other purplish spots. Perhaps the Dems should abandon national primaries and only count states that are purple or at most blue and purple. Clinton's relative strength in red southern states won't matter much in November.

The problem is that because of the way US politics work, most states are actually pretty evenly split. It just looks as if they aren't because of the winner-takes-all nature of the system (so say, a 10% lead is a gigantic advantage)

Disenfranchising the millions of democrats in southern states would be... Unwise. Especially if you want to win those southern states. 

[Altherion]

56 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Sorry to jump in without reading all of the thread -- what's the analysis of whether Clinton's advantage in the primary actually carries over to the general election?

The whole thing basically comes down to Florida, Colorado, Ohio and maybe Nevada, Virginia and a couple of other purplish spots. Perhaps the Dems should abandon national primaries and only count states that are purple or at most blue and purple. Clinton's relative strength in red southern states won't matter much in November.

Beyond the meaninglessness of the Southern state victories which you've already mentioned, it is really, really difficult to predict how she will fare in November. It's worth remembering that her current opponent is a white, male, 74 year old, Jew-turned-atheist socialist from Vermont who has practically no backing from the Democrat establishment and fact wasn't even a Democrat until recently. It's possible to think of a more ideal punching bag (e.g. a conservative like Ted Cruz), but not one that is plausible (no conservative would be stupid enough to run for the Democratic nomination)... and Sanders is not actually losing by that much -- he has won more states than the non-leading Republicans combined (though he'll almost certainly lose in the end).

Regarding only counting states that are purple: that would only work if you could somehow keep it secret -- nobody likes being taken for granted. Besides, it would not actually resolve the core problem of the primary. What one would want is all of the voters who will go to the polls in the general election to pick the best of the candidates offered by one's party. What one gets in a primary is a motivated subset of the party plus some others who care enough to vote in that party's primary (caucuses are an unmitigated disaster which has the same problem and a few others). Restricting the primaries to purple states would not help with this.

[Martell Spy]

Oh man, this is so ridiculous. Romney is not going to save the GOP. He's a big loser who was already rejected by the American people.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/mitt_romney_can_t_save_the_gop_from_trump.html

Mitt Romney Cannot Save the GOP

80

95

199

He’s part of the problem. 

[TerraPrime]

15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Oh man, this is so ridiculous. Romney is not going to save the GOP. He's a big loser who was already rejected by the American people.

Don't be so cruel. Commodore was just dusting off his Romney bobble head!

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

I do think the two Clinton's trajectories have been rather interesting in that respect. It's why I don't buy the "Clinton Dynasty" comments as anything but hogwash. Hillary Clinton was always the kind of person who would be trying to run for President or whatever whether she met Bill or not. The fact that she married him actually put her entire career ambitions on hold and alot of the shit she gets from the 90s in the media and such was exactly for being "too uppity" and seen as too powerful. (I do sometimes wonder if some of the generational break against Clinton you see is because alot of the people in question aren't old enough to remember why Hillary Clinton got the shit she did and only know her from the media narrative.)

I kinda like that the two of them, whatever else they are up to in their personal lives, seem to be trading off who gets to fulfil their ambitions. Hillary put her career on hold so Bill could run for office and now he's putting his weight behind her so she can do the same. I think that's admirable in many ways.

We're buying into a fiction here, though. 

 

America's not aristocratic.

 

Right. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, and now Clinton. Sound bytes and legacy tenure are turning name recognition into blue blood. Do you really think that it's a coincidence that tge 1/X hundred million keeps being related to one of the other 1/X hundred million? You can't really believe that Clinton is here in spite of her connection to a prior President, anymore than Dubya'd have been anywhere near the WH without daddy. She's infinitely more able, but it's absurd to think these patterns are coincidental. There are many very able people out there with no connection to a name brand and therefore much less chance to ever get connected with an auto-slot on the campaign short list. If JFK Jr. hadn't crashed, he'd certainly have had a seat because he was...?

[Jaxom 1974]

Gods help me...my mother just started arguing with me that Bernie is a Communist.  She refused to listen when I explained he wasn't.  She doesn't even watch Fox News. I don't know where she gets this stuff...